Legal Technology | Transparency & Accountability | Civil Procedure
Just Security, a respected digital journal on law and policy, recently expanded its Litigation Tracker, now monitoring 271 active lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive actions . But beneath its comprehensive façade lies a crucial limitation—cases in which the Trump administration sues as plaintiff are intentionally excluded.
What the Tracker Tracks—and What It Doesn’t
The Tracker focuses exclusively on plaintiffs suing to block or contest Trump-era executive acts. It explicitly:
- Tracks litigation initiated against administration policies—such as immigration proclamations or executive orders.
- Excludes any cases where the administration itself is the plaintiff in civil litigation (justsecurity.org, washingtonpost.com).
This contrasts with similar tools—e.g., Lawfare’s tracker—which also catalogues suits brought by the administration to enforce its policies (lawfaremedia.org).
Why the Exclusion Matters
1. Incomplete Litigation Landscape
A full picture of federal litigation includes both defensive (challenge-based) and affirmative (government-initiated) suits. By omitting the latter, the Tracker risks underrepresenting the scope and strategy of Trump-era legal thrusts.
2. Asymmetry in Legal Accountability
While the Tracker highlights checks on executive overreach, it refrains from cataloguing cases where the administration wields judicial power to expand authority or defend contested policies—cementing a one-directional view.
3. Reliance Risk for Users
Students, scholars, and counsel using the Tracker may mistakenly assume it is comprehensive. The omission necessitates disclaimers and careful cross-referencing with other sources like Lawfare or court dockets.
Comparative Insight: Lawfare vs. Just Security
- Just Security: 271 cases → plaintiffs challenging Trump executive actions only (litigationtracker.justiceactioncenter.org, joshuaberkowitz.us)
- Lawfare: Legal challenges for and against the administration’s national-security measures
Understanding the distinction helps reveal different editorial and analytical philosophies. Just Security’s focus aligns with its mission to elevate threats to rights and accountability; Lawfare offers a broader litigation map.
Why Transparency Demands Both Sides
- Understanding governmental leverage: Civil suits filed by the administration—e.g. to enforce funding restrictions or regulatory mandates—offer insight into how legal tools complement executive authority.
- Policy enforcement vs. legal defiance: Defensive litigation examines how administration actions are constrained; affirmative suits reveal how they are enforced, defended, or expanded.
- Structural bias: Omissions can warp public perception, suggesting fewer legal assertive moves than actually occur.
How the Civil-Litigation Gap Impacts Analysis
Legal scholars and the broader public often rely on LitTrackers for:
- Trend analysis: Tracking frequency, types, and outcomes of legal interventions.
- Strategic forecasting: Predicting next executive moves and their legal countermeasures.
- Educational resources: Teaching students about the role of courts in policy-making.
Absent half the equation—the administration’s own litigation—these insights may understate the depth and reach of judicial power during the Trump era.
Conclusion: Selective Litigation Tracking
Just Security’s Litigation Tracker is an essential resource for monitoring the external challenges to Trump’s executive actions—but its deliberate exclusion of administration‑filed civil suits means it’s not the full story. Scholars, analysts, and legal professionals should use it in tandem with sources like Lawfare’s tracker and federal case dockets to accurately map the dual pathways of legal engagement by the Trump administration.
This selective scope should be kept in mind to ensure transparency, foster comprehensive analysis, and avoid misinterpretations about the nature and scale of government litigation in this era.
Subscribe for Full Access.
